Tag: climate

Categories
ideological culture regulation too much government

Air Conditioners — Threat or Menace?

U.K., Great Britain, global warming, climate, regulations

Is it selfish, asks Good Morning Britain, to want air conditioning?

Yes, it’s selfish to want to live and prosper and be comfortable in 90 degree heat. 

And this “selfish” cooling is bad because . . . ?

According to “the experts” queried by the Good Morning Britain presenters — which broadcasts using “non-green” energy — it’s bad because “we know” that the cooling of indoor air will heat up the outdoors — and therefore the planet.

Catastrophically, of course.

But we don’t know.

It’s one of many unproven assertions about the future of weather that get tossed around to make us feel guilty about not wanting to live in caves and eat dandelions. 

We do know that people deal capably with often extremely variable weather and other problems by using manmade food, shelter, clothing, and transportation — as well as cooling and heating. All highly suspect in the minds of Europe’s climate catastrophists. Who even attack farming.

Some climate autocrats in the UK are now actually making Brits take out their air conditioning units. Catastrophically, of course. One North London resident “was forced to ‘permanently remove’ two air-con units from the back of their home.” Council members ordained that there was “no justification” for the units. Another resident ordered to rip out his AC prevailed after appealing to a Planning Inspectorate — because he had solar panels.

“Air-con engineers told The Telegraph that they had been called out to remove perfectly operational units worth thousands of pounds across London.”

It’s a Blitz that the Brits are doing to themselves. Soon we’ll have to airlift the few who are still sane out of there. Think of it as a civilizational Dunkirk.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets litigation U.S. Constitution

Punish Energy Producers?

global warming, climate, hysteria, courts, litigation, lawsuit, socialism, government

The latest attempt to hamper our ability to do things? A series of lawsuits against oil companies for allegedly committing global warming. The plaintiffs want billions and billions to be extracted from these companies for fueling civilization.

Litigation before the Supreme Court, Suncor v. Boulder County, is “one of the most consequential energy cases in decades,” argue Michael Toth and Sarah Harbison in the New York Post. 

Boulder County is just one of many seeking to make oil and gas companies fork over massive damages. 

To whom? Entities like Boulder County.

The high court’s response will help determine the viability of future such litigation and “whether the United States remains an energy superpower.”

Energy superpower status is not what people trying to drive their cars and heat their homes at a reasonable cost are worried about. If the court accepts the plaintiffs’ reasoning, the sky’s the limit as far as the liability of the energy industry. 

And those new sky-high liability costs for gas and oil providers will result in new sky-high costs for you and me.

Looting all of us is fine with lawsuit supporters like David Bookbinder of Environmental Integrity Project. “This is a rather convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax,” Toth and Harbison claim. “The people who use the products pay for the damage that they cause.”

The Post’s authors urge the Supreme Court to “shut down” this attempt to circumvent the Constitution. And confirm that U.S. energy policy “can’t be dictated by local lawsuits.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana & Grok Imagine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
media and media people regulation too much government

Submit to Our Plans, Shivering Peasant

Colorado, natural gas, climate, energy, fuel, regualtions

How to defuse resistance to tyranny: helpful information.

Colorado now mandates that emissions from burning natural gas be cut, over the next ten years, by 41 percent — the perfect percentage, elsewise it would’ve been rounded to 40. 

No more natural gas emissions at all by 2050. 

“News that Colorado has set hard target dates for an end to burning natural gas in our daily lives prompted many ‘wait, what?’ questions from Colorado Sun readers,” says Sun columnist Michael Booth. He is here to help.

Propane tanks? These may not be banned by the current law, but do try to convert to electrical appliances. (If the power goes out, Coloradans can always use some other electrical thing as backup. Think batteries, lots of batteries!)

Also, the “new rules are not aimed at homeowners,” Coloradans will be relieved to know. Just at utilities . . . which serve homeowners. “Under current rules, no one is showing up at your door to rip out a gas water heater against your will.” 

Those helpful government agents will show up at your utility’s door with a court order forcing your utility to rip up natural gas lines, instead.

What if the switchover happens too slowly for regulators? 

Column for another day.

Any advice on reversing the ban? 

Mr. Booth might protest that it’s not his job to lead any rebel alliance, only to give information on things. Oh, sure. Well, he might have offered info on how to contact Colorado state legislators and the governor’s office. 

Not for any purpose but just to keep readers well-informed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability folly political economy

Green Goes Red

Sweden, climate, pensions, economics

Well, at least they were earnest. Hopeful. Committed.

Swedes in the north part of their country channeled State pension funds — billions of kronor! — into climate-friendly projects.

Well, I’m not sure to what degree Swedish citizens were for this ideologically driven investment portfolio, but Swedish politicians sure were!

And now those investments appear iffy. “State pension fund AP2 had invested £117.7 million in Northvolt before its collapse,” explains GBN News, out of Great Britain. “It also holds £46.8 million in Stegra, plus a further £15.6 million exposure through its investment in Al Gore’s Just Climate fund.” And both Northvolt and Stegra — “once flagship companies of the energy transition,” as Blackout News puts it — teeter at the abyss of failure.

Northvolt was once Europe’s leading Great Green Hope, an electric vehicle battery company with a commitment to sustainability; in November it filed for bankruptcy protection.

Stegra was until recently seen as Sweden’s high-profile “green steel” leader, but now faces an £858 million funding gap.

There has been some shuffling of management, but even were the world’s most magical managers to pull these companies’ feet out of the fire — even if the endeavors can limp out of the current fire-sale conflagration — ask yourself: does it ever make sense to leave pension funds in the hands of zealots who seek to change the world for some utopian dream? 

It makes far more sense to let private equity fund risky projects, for private fund managers have more (voluntarily given funds) on the line.

Politicians, after all, are notoriously irresponsible — always willing to bet your future on their dreams.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with ChatGPT and NanoBanana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
litigation

A Million from Michael Mann

Michael Mann, climate, free speech, censorship, courts

Things aren’t working out for Michael Mann. The infamous “climate scientist” has been pursuing a years-long vendetta against critics of his methods and conclusions, and it’s been a bumpy ride.

Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg accused him of manipulating data “in the service of politicized science.” Instead of answering the criticism, Mann treated it as actionably defamatory.

In 2012, Mann launched a lawsuit against Simberg (of the Competitive Enterprise) and Steyn (then writing for National Review).

National Review observes that the criticism which offended Mann “was obviously protected by the First Amendment,” so that his suit should have been scuttled immediately.

Instead, judges antagonistic to free speech when they find the speech uncongenial enabled Mann’s litigation to trundle on for years.

The story gets complicated, as touched upon a few months ago. In 2021, the tide seemed to be turning in favor of Steyn and Simberg, with a court issuing a favorable summary judgment. But in January 2024, a jury found Steyn and Simberg liable for defamation. The awards? Steyn was ordered to pay $1 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages, Simberg to pay $1 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages.

That insane $1 million amount was later reduced to $5,000.

Now it is Mann taking the hit, with rulings that he must pay about a million bucks in legal fees to CEI and Rand Simberg ($477,350) and National Review ($530,820).

National Review urges Michael Mann to finally relinquish his authoritarian quest lest he lose even more. 

Will he? It would be irrational to continue, but it was irrational at the start.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
folly too much government

Europe Goes Dark

Spain, Portugal, power, electrical grid, climate, EU,

If you prevent countries from using the most reliable fuels for making the electricity that lights the lights, elevates the elevators, and powers all other powered things, what would be the likely consequence?

Not, I think, to make the power grids more reliable.

The power companies say they don’t know why almost all the power went out recently in Spain and Portugal and in other parts of Europe.

No indication so far of cyberattack or other sabotage. 

Red Electrica, Spain’s state-run electricity network, points to a “very strong oscillation” in the network causing the Spanish system to disconnect from the European system. Portugal’s grid operator says that the oscillations had to do with extreme temperature variations.

Spain’s electrical network now relies almost entirely on “renewable” sources of energy, “green” energy, anything but fossil fuels. (Actually, no energy is renewable; in usable form it’s gone the instant you use it. And it all comes from nature, including gas and oil.)

On April 16, Red Electra, eager to “curb the climate crisis” (weather), reported meeting all electrical demand using “renewable” sources of energy, mostly solar (60 percent).

Some have pointed out that solar and wind power don’t provide the inertia generated by the massive turbines of “traditional generators, like coal and hydroelectric plants or gas turbines.” And so the power grid becomes much more vulnerable to disruptions and oscillations, no matter the cause.

My theory is that the more ways you hobble yourself, the more likely you are to become hobbled. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
budgets & spending cuts subsidy

Don’t Blame DOGE

Rocky Mountain Institute

Sometime during the Trump administration’s fast and furious spending cuts and cancellations, the Rocky Mountain Institute lost millions in Biden-era federal climate-nonsense grants — cut not by DOGE but by the Department of Energy under Secretary Chris Wright.

Tears have been shed, garments rent: $5.3 million would have been used to retrofit a building to make it more green; $1.5 million would have funded research on the practicality of “electric vehicle carshare programs” and the “resilience” and “equity” of U.S. business models.

These initiatives are just the tip of the spear. RMI is also a good buddy of the Chinese government. RMI even has an office in Beijing.

As James Roth puts it over at our sister publication StoptheCCP.org, “Yes, RMI works with the communist government and proudly. It’s all over their website. It’s their specialty.”

Hold on, Roth. We must all try to understand that this is the kind of thing we must do if we wish to pretend to effectuate real global change in order to pretend to finetune world climate. If we let reality infect our thinking, what happens to mankind’s noble dream of instituting a globe-girdling weather-control machine while fatuously enabling the policies, conduct, and lies of tyrants? It would evaporate in the morning sun.

We’d be stuck with facts. 

We’d be stuck treating RMI as responsible for its actions, as U.S. Senator Ted Cruz did in a letter to the institute’s CEO in 2023, asking “whether RMI has ever received any funding from any entity or individual associated with the Chinese government. Please answer with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. . . .”

There’s at least one such funder. RMI has gotten money from Energy Foundation China, which has CCP ties and is “run by former Chinese Communist Party officials.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets regulation too much government

Unplugging the EV Mandate

gas engine, electric cars, global warming, climate, government, regulations

Under the Biden administration, gas-powered vehicles were on a government-impelled road to decline.

In March 2024, the EPA finalized Biden’s “crackdown on gas cars” by issuing absurdly stringent emission standards. The idea was to advance the administration’s “climate agenda” by sending gas-powered modes of transportation to the junkyard.

Leaders of the petroleum industry were among those who saw that the scheme would “make new gas-powered vehicles unavailable or prohibitively expensive for most Americans.” The policy would “feel and function like a ban.”

This was just one of many examples of Biden-oppression pushing American voters who value at least their own freedom into the Trump camp.

Electric vehicles have pluses and minuses. In past columns, I’ve expressed much enthusiasm for the technology, but recognized that it must develop naturally, in a free market, rather than unnaturally, out of ideological hope and fear-ridden “need,” forced by government regulation and subsidy.

As James Roth has noted over at StoptheCCP.org, we’ve had a century and a half to fine-tune gas-powered vehicles, a mature technology that is “beloved by the public.” Why not let electric and gas cars compete fair and square in the market? And why give an artificial boost to totalitarian China’s heavily subsidized and promoted EV industry by crippling the gas-car industry here at home?

President Trump has heard the cry of those who prefer to step on the gas.

Section 2(e) of his sweeping executive order on “Unleashing American Energy” states that it is the policy of the United States to “eliminate the electric vehicle mandate . . . by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access” and other thumb-on-scale interventions in the market.

Is the future of gas cars going to be great again?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights ideological culture media and media people

Bill Nye, the Jail-My-Debating-Opponent Guy

Bill Nye, science, climate, global warming, censorship, authoritarianism

The latest Joe Biden outrage is the handing out of Presidential Medals of Freedom to the blatantly undeserving.

Popularizers of science seem to have gone downhill these days. Or perhaps it’s just a few of the most visible ones who are so vile.

In their own day, Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov espoused some lamentable left-wing views and advanced some dubious propositions as they explained the universe to nonscientists. But you could listen to, read, and enjoy them.

Neither ever suggested, not even once, that persons who disagreed with him on a scientific question might reasonably be incarcerated therefore — inasmuch as the disagreement impaired his quality of life “as a public citizen.” (An argument any totalitarian might use to rationalize violating innocent persons’ rights.)

But Bill Nye, “the science guy,” has expressed the greatest possible sympathy with the proposition that it might be okay to imprison scientists who disagree with him about climate, human impact on climate, or the advisability of trying to centrally plan climate.

In 2016, when asked about a proposal to imprison “climate skeptics,” Nye said that “extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my qualify of life as a public citizen. That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change, I think that is good.”

People don’t do their best thinking with a gun pointed at them, Nye guy. That is not good.

Note: it’s the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Not the Presidential Medal of Craven Censorship.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom international affairs

Denial Is a River in Argentina?

“In the history of the Earth, there is a cycle of temperatures,” said Javier Milei during a presidential debate in 2023. “We are not going to adhere to the 2030 Agenda [a United Nations list of dozens of goals for curtailing countries’ use of resources]. We do not adhere to cultural Marxism. We do not adhere to decadence.”

Now Argentina’s President Milei is acting to formally withdraw from accords requiring countries to become poorer in order to “save the planet,” etc.

Although Milei has axed many government departments, his government still has a chief environmental officer. This personage had been leading the Argentine delegation attending the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan, happening November 11-22, 2024. But Argentina had told the delegation not to participate.

Now Milei has pulled them from the summit. Why? That was not immediately announced. But “Milei has consistently denied the existence of a climate crisis,” moans the Buenos Aires Herald.

Denialist Milei doubtless recognizes hurricanes, tornadoes, and other incidents of drastic weather. He’d probably add, though, that planet earth has seen plenty of crisis-level weather before carbon-emitting industry arrived to take the blame.

Milei’s decision to exit COP29 came a day after his meeting with President-elect Donald Trump, of like mind on environmental and other questions.

Trump is expected to re-withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Paris agreement, another anti-industrial environmental accord. We don’t know yet whether Argentina will also withdraw. 

But if you’re betting Yes, I like your chances.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts